What our Nations are up against!

How to Use this Blog

Howdy! We've amassed tons of information and important history on this blog since 2010. If you have a keyword, use the search box below. Also check out the reference section above. If you have a question or need help searching, use the contact form at the bottom of the blog. ALSO, if you buy any of the books at the links provided, the editor will earn a small amount of money or commission. (we thank you) (that is our disclaimer statement)

This is a blog. It is not a peer-reviewed journal, not a sponsored publication... The ideas, news and thoughts posted are sourced… or written by the editor or contributors.

2019: This blog was ranked #50 in top 100 blogs about adoption. Let's make it #1...

2019: WE NEED A TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION Commission in the US now for the Adoption Programs that stole generations of children... Goldwater Institute's work to dismantle ICWA is another glaring attempt at cultural genocide.

Search This Blog

Friday, August 9, 2013

Keep Veronica Home: Fact Check

Source: http://keepveronicahome.com/index.php/fact-check

1. “He signed his rights away.”

TRUTH:
“It is undisputed that the only consent document Father ever signed
was a one-page ‘Acceptance of Service’ stating he was not contesting the
adoption, which was purportedly presented for Father's signature as a
prerequisite to the service of a summons and complaint. Thus, Appellants
did not follow the clear procedural directives of section 1913(a) in
obtaining Father's consent. Moreover, even if this ‘consent’ was valid
under the statute, then Father's subsequent legal campaign to obtain
custody of Baby Girl has rendered any such consent withdrawn. Therefore,
neither Father's signature on the ‘Acceptance of Service’ document, nor
his stated intentions to relinquish his rights, were effectual forms of
voluntary consent under the ICWA.” – South Carolina Supreme Court
There
is a legal way to “sign away rights” for good reason, Dusten never came
close to any legal relinquishment of parental rights.

2. “He texted his rights away”

TRUTH:
In no state in the country can a father relinquish parental rights by
text message. These text messages WERE NOT EVIDENCE at trial because
the attorney for the Adoptive Couple would not produce the phone that
showed Birth Mother’s messages to father, instead they attempted to
introduce photocopies, even though the cell phone was allegedly in a
safe at the office of the Guardian Ad Litem’s attorney. The Family Court
did not consider these text messages as evidence.

3. “He abandoned his daughter”

TRUTH:
“All attempts to contact Maldonado by Brown and his family members
were refused by Maldonado. Shortly after the child’s birth, Brown’s
family members purchased some items for the child and attempted to
deliver them to Maldonado, but these were rejected. It was clear that
Maldonado wanted to have Brown completely and permanently removed from
her life and placing the child for adoption without his knowledge or
consent would further this goal.” – Family Court
“Father testified he
asked friends and family if they had seen Mother because she would not
reply to his text messages. His mother testified she attempted to
contact Mother on several occasions and once left Mother a voice message
before Baby Girl's birth to tell Mother she had money and some gifts
for the baby, including items she hand-knitted, but Mother never
returned her telephone calls. Mother testified that none of Father's
family members contacted her regarding gifts for Baby Girl.” – Family
Court The Family Court repeatedly stated that it did “not find birth
mother’s testimony credible.” – Family Court Bench Ruling, United States
Supreme Court Brief

4. “It is in Veronica’s best interest to be adopted”

TRUTH:
The only findings based on evidence of Veronica’s best interests found that she should be with her father.
“Brown is the father of another daughter. The undisputed testimony is
that he is a loving and devoted father. Even Maldonado herself
testified that he was a good father. There is no evidence to suggest
that he would be anything other than an excellent parent to this child. .
. . Brown has convinced me of his unwavering love for this child.” –
Family Court
“The family court order stated, ‘[w]hen parental rights and the best
interests of the child are in conflict, the best interests of the child
must prevail. However, in this case, I find no conflict between the
two.’ Likewise, we cannot say that Baby Girl's best interests are not
served by the grant of custody to Father, as Appellants have not
presented evidence that Baby Girl would not be safe, loved, and cared
for if raised by Father and his family.” South Carolina Supreme Court
“Plainly, the family court determined that there was no conflict
between Father's best interests and Baby Girl's best interests.” – South
Carolina Supreme Court

5. “He’s not really ‘Indian’”

TRUTH:
Dusten Brown has been a registered citizen of the Cherokee Nation
since he was a child. Further, the South Carolina Supreme Court found
true cultural ties to the Cherokee Nation:
“The Record establishes that Father's family has a deeply embedded
relationship with the Cherokee Nation. For example, not only does the
Record indicate that Father and his family are proud of their heritage
and membership in the Wolf Clan, the home study performed on Father's
parents states the following:
[Father's father] is Cherokee Indian. He grew up knowing he was
Cherokee and being proud of who he was. [Father's parents] . . . prepare
the following traditional foods in their home: grape dumplings,
buckskin bread, Indian cornbread, Indian tacos, wild onions, fry bread,
polk salad and deer meat. [Father's mother] state[d] she cooks these
foods in her home on a regular basis and all of her children have eaten
these items.
[Father's parents] attend the Cherokee Holiday in Tahlequah,
Oklahoma[,] when they can and do participate in eating traditional
foods, viewing the arts and crafts and watching the traditional games.
[Father's father] participates in voting in the Cherokee elections[,] . .
. . took part in learning about the Cherokee culture when his children
were in high school by learning to make Indian crafts and learning to
play the drum[, and] . . . . is sometimes seen at the Nowata Indian
Health Clinic but receives the majority of his health care from the
Veterans hospital. He claims his family is from the Wolf Clan, and he
has been to, as well as participated, in stomp dances.
[H]is family had Indian land which was located in Pryor, Oklahoma and
Cayuga, Oklahoma. He claims to have very traditional ties with his
extended family and considers geneology [sic] a hobby by researching his
Cherokee culture. [Father's parents] have many Native American items in
their home. Decorative Native American pieces are scattered throughout
their home in nearly every room.
Thus, the Record demonstrates that Father and his family are well-positioned to introduce Baby Girl to her Indian heritage.”

6. “He just wants her for money.”

TRUTH:
As all Cherokee Nation citizens know, we don’t get any money for
“being Cherokee” or for having “Cherokee kids.” The only people who have
made money in this case are the adoption agencies and attorneys.

7. “Cherokee Nation paid Dusten’s legal expenses”

TRUTH:
Cherokee Nation has never spent a single a dime on attorney fees for
Dusten Brown. He and his family used every extra dollar they had to pay
for attorneys and after that was exhausted, Dusten’s amazing attorneys
donated their time because they believed in him and believed that
Veronica belonged with her father.

8. “We didn’t know Veronica was Cherokee.”

TRUTH:
“Mother testified that she knew "from the beginning" that Father was a
registered citizen of the Cherokee Nation, and that she deemed this
information "important" throughout the adoption process. Further, she
testified she knew that if the Cherokee Nation were alerted to Baby
Girl's status as an Indian child, "some things were going to come into
effect, but [she] wasn't for [sic] sure what." Mother reported Father's
Indian heritage on the Nightlight Agency's adoption form and testified
she made Father's Indian heritage known to Appellants and every agency
involved in the adoption. However, it appears that there were some
efforts to conceal his Indian status. In fact, the pre-placement form
reflects Mother's reluctance to share this information:
Initially the birth mother did not wish to identify the father, said
she wanted to keep things low-key as possible for the [Appellants],
because he's registered in the Cherokee tribe. It was determined that
naming him would be detrimental to the adoption.”
“Adoptive Mother testified that, because they hired an attorney to
specifically inquire about the baby's Cherokee Indian status, ‘when she
was born, we were under the impression that she was not Cherokee.’”
But,
“Adoptive Mother testified that the Nightlight Agency's pre-placement
report was ‘probably . . . something I read and didn't think twice about
it.’”

9. “The Guardian Ad Litem supports the Adoption”

TRUTH:
The Family Court appointed a guardian ad litem (“GAL”) who has filed a
brief in this Court that purports to be on behalf of Baby Girl and
asserts that Baby Girl’s interests would be best served by awarding
custody to petitioners. In fact, the GAL is not a neutral party.
Although appointed by the Family Court, that court noted that the GAL
and her attorney both “were unilaterally selected by [petitioners’]
counsel”; the GAL had a continuing business relationship with
petitioners’ attorney, with whom she had worked frequently in cases in
2009.
In this case, although the GAL had performed a comprehensive home
study of petitioners, she resisted repeated requests from Father’s
attorney to conduct a home study of Father. When the GAL finally did
conduct such a study, well over a year after her appointment and some
five months after counsel’s request, she informed Father and his family
that “she knew the adoptive couple prior to the child being placed in
their home” and “had worked with them before the child had been placed”;
that petitioners were a well-educated couple with a beautiful home,
could afford to send Baby Girl to any private school that they chose
and, when she was older, to any college she wanted; and that there was
nothing that Baby Girl needed that petitioners could not buy for her.
The GAL therefore told Father’s family that they “really need[ed] to
get down on [their] knees and pray to God that [they] can make the right
decision for this baby” (id. at 148), and they “needed to talk to God
and pray about taking the child from the only family that she has
known.” At trial, Father stated that the GAL treated him and his family
as “a bunch of * * * rednecks that can’t * * * afford anything, that
we’re not able to provide this child with proper education, schooling * *
*. Pretty much that we weren’t fit to love this child and raise her.”
The GAL’s initial report did not note Baby Girl’s Native American
heritage because the GAL thought that was “not something * * * the
courts need to take into consideration.”
As for the GAL’s view of Native
American culture, she stated that the advantages of having Native
American heritage “include[ed] free lunches and free medical care and
that they did have their little get togethers and their little dances.”
Given the GAL’s obvious bias, respondents initially sought her removal.
But rather than delay the proceedings, respondents ultimately
withdrew this motion on the understanding that the Family Court would
not consider either the GAL’s conclusion regarding Baby Girl’s best
interests or the GAL’s custody recommendation. See Pet.
Indeed, South
Carolina law precludes a guardian ad litem in a private adoption from
providing a custody recommendation unless one is requested by the court;
no such request was made here. – United States Supreme Court Brief by
Father

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please: Share your reaction, your thoughts, and your opinions. Be passionate, be unapologetic. Offensive remarks will not be published. We are getting more and more spam. Comments will be monitored. Use the comment form at the bottom of this website which is private and sent direct to Trace.

Survivors, write your stories. Write your parents stories. Write the elders stories. Do not be swayed by the colonizers to keep quiet. Tribal Nations have their own way of keeping stories alive.... Trace

Help in available!

1-844-7NATIVE (click photo)

click to listen

Diane Tells His Name

Please support NARF

Indian Country is under attack. Native tribes and people are fighting hard for justice. There is need for legal assistance across Indian Country, and NARF is doing as much as we can. With your help, we have fought for 48 years and we continue to fight.

It is hard to understand the extent of the attacks on Indian Country. We are sending a short series of emails this month with a few examples of attacks that are happening across Indian Country and how we are standing firm for justice.

Today, we look at recent effort to undo laws put in place to protect Native American children and families. All children deserve to be raised by loving families and communities. In the 1970s, Congress realized that state agencies and courts were disproportionately removing American Indian and Alaska Native children from their families. Often these devastating removals were due to an inability or unwillingness to understand Native cultures, where family is defined broadly and raising children is a shared responsibility. To stop these destructive practices, Congress passed the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA).

After forty years, ICWA has proven to be largely successful and many states have passed their own ICWAs. This success, however, is now being challenged by large, well-financed opponents who are actively and aggressively seeking to undermine ICWA’s protections for Native children. We are seeing lawsuits across the United States that challenge ICWA’s protections. NARF is working with partners to defend the rights of Native children and families.

where were you adopted?

To Veronica Brown

Veronica, we adult adoptees are thinking of you today and every day. We will be here when you need us. Your journey in the adopted life has begun, nothing can revoke that now, the damage cannot be undone. Be courageous, you have what no adoptee before you has had; a strong group of adult adoptees who know your story, who are behind you and will always be so.

Join!

National Indigenous Survivors of Child Welfare Network (NISCWN)

Membership Application Form

The Network is open to all Indigenous and Foster Care Survivors any time.

ADOPTION TRUTH

As the single largest unregulated industry in the United States, adoption is viewed as a benevolent action that results in the formation of “forever families.” The truth is that it is a very lucrative business with a known sales pitch. With profits last estimated at over $1.44 billion dollars a year, mothers who consider adoption for their babies need to be very aware that all of this promotion clouds the facts and only though independent research can they get an accurate account of what life might be like for both them and their child after signing the adoption paperwork.

This has happened to many, many Native children! We must protect ICWA and enforce it so that it stops! Even non-Native families that are not racist cannot provide a Native child with cultural knowledge and belonging. Only their tribes can do that. #ProudtoProtectICWAhttps://t.co/oA1e5kiK4k

A4: Twenty-one states filed an amicus brief in this case in support of #ICWA. These states, which are home to over 70 percent of tribal nations, know that ICWA helps them better serve Native children and families.#ProudtoProtectICWA

TWO WORLDS Book 1 (second edition)

Two Worlds anthology (Vol. 1)

“…sometimes shocking, often an emotional read…this book is for individuals interested in the culture and history of the Native American Indian, but also on the reading lists of universities offering ethnic/culture/Native studies.”

“Well-researched and obviously a subject close to the heart of the authors/compilers, I found the extent of what can only be described as ‘child-snatching’ from the Native Americans quite staggering. It’s not something I was aware of before…”

“The individual pieces are open and honest and give a good insight into the turmoil of dislocation from family and tribe… I think it does have value and a story to tell. I was affected by the stories I read, and amazed by the facts presented…. because it is saying something new, interesting and often astonishing.”

Did you know?

Good words

I agree with you on the caring of “orphans” – true orphans, not “paper orphans” as Kathryn Joyce describes in her book, The Child Catchers. The most important thing to remember, however, is that the orphan’s original identity and family connection and heritage must remain intact and available to him or her forever. This business of adoption – and I do mean the multi-billion-dollar, unregulated business of adoption – of wiping out the child’s original identity, falsifying birth records with the adopters’ names, altering facts such as place of birth, severing familial kinship, must stop … Immediately. And the outrageous injustices foisted upon adoptees and their families for the past 100 years must be addressed and righted. We are faced today with six to seven million people who were basically legally kidnapped, sold to the highest bidder, their identities falsified, and placed in a lifelong, imposed witness protection program for which there is no legal recourse. Then told by church officials, agency and government functionaries that they have no right to know who they are, to do genealogy or learn about important family medical history, or know the identity of or associate with blood relatives. This is how the Judeo-Christian society has interpreted “caring for orphans”, for it’s own selfish interests and greed. Starting with Georgia Tann, the woman charged with kidnapping and selling 5,000 children, most of whom were given to the rich and powerful who then colluded with her to “seal” adoptions and cover their nefarious activities (see, for example, Gov. Herbert Lehman, NY, 1935).

We are #50 in the world?

Every. Day.

adoptees take back adoption narrative and reject propaganda

Disclosure Statement

“We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.”If you buy our books from Amazon, we receive a small payment.